On Creationism

[snikelfritz]

You want us to give you examples so you can scorn them? No thanks.

We'll give you examples of natural observable phenomenom that support our view of how the universe works, why can't you do the same?

[Klaymen]

You may want to present a single case (any case) of when any prayer worked. With that, you can convert all skeptics in the world if you really can do that.
People have tried this people, with no skeptic converts. You may want to prove that all instances of prayer have not worked before making such a vacuous statement.

[Roger Wilco]

People have tried this people, with no skeptic converts. You may want to prove that all instances of prayer have not worked before making such a vacuous statement.

Do you believe that prayer directed to other dieties (you don't believe in) have ever been answered?

[abt5]

People have tried this people, with no skeptic converts. You may want to prove that all instances of prayer have not worked before making such a vacuous statement.

there's no skeptic converts because there's no evidence that any one single prayer has worked - especially when it says in the bible that the success rate is supposedly 100%

[snikelfritz]

People have tried this people, with no skeptic converts. You may want to prove that all instances of prayer have not worked before making such a vacuous statement.

Can you prove that any instance of prayer has worked?

here's the experiment, in two identical situations, one where someone prayed, and one where someone meditated, observe the outcome. If it's better with the prayer than the meditation Boom, you've proven prayer does something. If it's the same, Boom, you've proven prayer does nothing.

[SamTheEagle]

Can you prove that any instance of prayer has worked?

here's the experiment, in two identical situations, one where someone prayed, and one where someone meditated, observe the outcome. If it's better with the prayer than the meditation Boom, you've proven prayer does something. If it's the same, Boom, you've proven prayer does nothing.

You've only proved that prayer doesn't work in that particular test.

Answered prayers are miraculous and are, by definition, non-repeatable. Why would you expect a non-natural phenomenon to behave like a natural phenomenon such that it could be studied with the scientific method? If I drop a ball under the exact same conditions 100 times, all 100 times it will bounce the same way. If I pray under the exact same conditions 100 times, the prayer will not be responded to the exact same way 100 times.

[abt5]

You've only proved that prayer doesn't work in that particular test.

Answered prayers are miraculous and are, by definition, non-repeatable. Why would you expect a non-natural phenomenon to behave like a natural phenomenon such that it could be studied with the scientific method? If I drop a ball under the exact same conditions 100 times, all 100 times it will bounce the same way. If I pray under the exact same conditions 100 times, the prayer will not be responded to the exact same way 100 times.


why's that?

[Roger Wilco]

why's that?

Well there is a commandment that says not to test God. That may explain it.

Personally I wouldn't trust anyone that says I shouldn't test their reliability or can't prove it to me in any other way.

[The Borg]

There are many aspects of what it means to pray. The Lord's prayer, for example, shows that prayer is a way to:
- give God praise
- acknowledge His sovereignty
- acknowledge our need for Him
- ask for forgiveness
- ask for deliverance

[snikelfritz]

You've only proved that prayer doesn't work in that particular test.

Answered prayers are miraculous and are, by definition, non-repeatable. Why would you expect a non-natural phenomenon to behave like a natural phenomenon such that it could be studied with the scientific method? If I drop a ball under the exact same conditions 100 times, all 100 times it will bounce the same way. If I pray under the exact same conditions 100 times, the prayer will not be responded to the exact same way 100 times.

let's say we had a group of 1000 identical cancer patients, what if we got 500 to pray to be cured, and 500 to meditate on overcoming cancer. If there is a God, shouldn't the praying group live longer? Why don't we go out and test that? Would God kill people with cancer to keep his abilities secret? Seems a bit odd, no?

[Roger Wilco]

let's say we had a group of 1000 identical cancer patients, what if we got 500 to pray to be cured, and 500 to meditate on overcoming cancer. If there is a God, shouldn't the praying group live longer? Why don't we go out and test that? Would God kill people with cancer to keep his abilities secret? Seems a bit odd, no?

Trying to show god doesn't answer prayers is kind of like trying to show that peoples individuals' personal experiences involving the diety of their choice are not real divine experiences. I don't think it even makes sense to set up an expiriment like above.

I think it is better to see what people believe about the prayers of other theists who don't believe in the same dieties and whether or not they claim their prayers were answered or not, and why.

[snikelfritz]

Trying to show god doesn't answer prayers is kind of like trying to show that peoples individuals' personal experiences involving the diety of their choice are not real divine experiences. I don't think it even makes sense to set up an expiriment like above.

I think it is better to see what people believe about the prayers of other theists who don't believe in the same dieties and whether or not they claim their prayers were answered or not, and why.

In terms of examining theism you're probably right.

If the cancer experiment were done, and there was a statistically significant difference in survival, that would actually cause me to change my mind a bit. I wouldn't necessarily believe in God as a result, but I'd be more willing to try to get my kids to believe, and perhaps post less in thread like this.

[Descalzo]

i think the problem with religious threads on the AO is there are so many jews (and other religious folk dont want an infraction point) in the actuarial field and they are hung up on the bible. Think in broad philosophical terms, then a meaningful discussion might take place, maybe, with asian actuaries?

The problem with religious threads on the AO is people like wolferine and Noddy. If everyone talked about it like Blue Man and StE, it would be a whole lot better.

[abt5]

The problem with religious threads on the AO is people like wolferine and Noddy. If everyone talked about it like Blue Man and StE, it would be a whole lot better.

we got rid of Sentinel and Abused Student already

[Vorian Atreides]

I don't give my kids everything they ask for, especially when I know that what they're asking for wouldn't be good for them or that there's something far better.

If I, an imperfect being, do what is in the best (long-term) interest for my kids, why should God be any different toward us?

[Gentle Giant]

The problem with religious threads on the AO is people like wolferine and Noddy. If everyone talked about it like Blue Man and StE, it would be a whole lot better.
Well, ___ Man can still be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but so can I, so :shrug:.

[abt5]

I don't give my kids everything they ask for, especially when I know that what they're asking for wouldn't be good for them or that there's something far better.

If I, an imperfect being, do what is in the best (long-term) interest for my kids, why should God be any different toward us?

1. You didn't have the ability to create the environment your kids are in
2. Yuo didn't have the ability to create your kids the way you want them to be
3. You're not omnipotent
4. You're not omniscient

[Roger Wilco]

If I, an imperfect being, do what is in the best (long-term) interest for my kids, why should God be any different toward us?

Because God is perfect and his ways are greater than your ways.

There are plenty of things god supposedly has done that I wouldn't do, but the explanation for why its ok is usually some variation of the above.

[Noddy]

The problem with religious threads on the AO is people like wolferine and Noddy. If everyone talked about it like Blue Man and StE, it would be a whole lot better.

wolferine is great! He provides so much fodder for ridicule

[Noddy]

we got rid of Sentinel and Abused Student already

really? that's too bad

they generated their fair share of fodder too

[Mr. Micro]

For those curious: A $2.4 million study to test prayer on the outcomes of heart surgery was performed. They had 3 groups. Those prayed for that knew it, those prayed for and didn't know it, those not prayed for and didn't know it.

The only difference was the the people that were prayed for and knew it had slightly higher complication rates. Probably due the stress of knowing people were praying for them



The study followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers. It was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion, and one of the participating hospitals. It will appear in Tuesday's issue of the American Heart Journal.

The research team tested the effect of having three Christian groups pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for "a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" for specific patients — their identities known only by first name and first initial of the last name.

The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600 apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were prayed for but only knew it was a possibility, and those who weren't prayed for but were told it was a possibility.

The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been unethical and impractical.

The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery. Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But 59 percent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52 percent of those who were told it was just a possibility.

Koenig, of Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the study, said the results didn't surprise him.


Obviously the religious say you can't test prayer so this doesn't mean anything to them. But, to an outside observer, prayer had no real effect.

[TheGillotine]

I don't give my kids everything they ask for, especially when I know that what they're asking for wouldn't be good for them or that there's something far better.

If I, an imperfect being, do what is in the best (long-term) interest for my kids, why should God be any different toward us?

Is torturing your children for all eternity in the basement in their long-term best interest?

[snikelfritz]

Is torturing your children for all eternity in the basement in their long-term best interest?

:lol: sometimes that's the only way to teach them!

[abt5]

:lol: sometimes that's the only way to teach them!

and by torturing he meant hot S&M mass orgy

[snikelfritz]

and by torturing he meant hot S&M mass orgy

The Aristocrats!

[Noddy]

Originally Posted by SamTheEagle
The unreasonableness comes not from what you believe, but your unwillingness to try to honestly understand appropriate exegesis and hermenuetics of the Bible.



lol

because I ( and every other human ape not a member of your sect ) have arrivred at a different conclusion you have the presumption to believe that I have been unwilling to blah blah blah?

my willingness to try to honestly understand appropriate exegesis and hermenuetics of the Bible occurred years ago. while I was transitioning from superstitious godbot to rational non-godbot.

fun fact ( regarding exegesis ): did you now that there are several thousand christian sects? and did you know that there is no such thing as Texan physics?

I think you may have missed my response.

[SamTheEagle]

I think you may have missed my response.

Nope.

[Noddy]

Austria has a reasonable requirement that driving license photos show the person's face without cluttering adornment — which seems fair enough, given that it will be used as ID. Unfortunately, they have an exemption for "confessional reasons", whatever that means, which is apparently that having a superstition allows you to wear whatever the heck you want in your ID photo.


Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

:rofl:

[Klaymen]

For those curious: A $2.4 million study to test prayer on the outcomes of heart surgery was performed. They had 3 groups. Those prayed for that knew it, those prayed for and didn't know it, those not prayed for and didn't know it.


Personally I take what may be perceived as an unusual position here. While the natural response is to pray for recovery, we only have so many years on this earth anyway and is it possible with heart complications, your time has arrived. I'm not convinced it is God's will for most or all of these people to make it thru, but people pray like it is. And who can blame them for trying/feeling that way?

To paraphrase a great speaker I once heard, "if we are eager to glorify the Lord while we live, should we not be as eager to glorify him in our death."

Something like that. FYI I have only been to one funeral (my grandmother's) and have not had a lot of surgery/death experiences in my family.

[abt5]

Personally I take what may be perceived as an unusual position here. While the natural response is to pray for recovery, we only have so many years on this earth anyway and is it possible with heart complications, your time has arrived. I'm not convinced it is God's will for most or all of these people to make it thru, but people pray like it is. And who can blame them for trying/feeling that way?

To paraphrase a great speaker I once heard, "if we are eager to glorify the Lord while we live, should we not be as eager to glorify him in our death."

Something like that. FYI I have only been to one funeral (my grandmother's) and have not had a lot of surgery/death experiences in my family.

so:
people who prayed and make it thru: their prayers are answered!
people who prayed and didn't make it thru: god heard 'em but their time has come
people who didn't pray and make it thru: their time hasn't come
people who didn't pray and didn't make it thru: ...well...what did you expect

[Entropy]

so:
people who prayed and make it thru: their prayers are answered!
people who prayed and didn't make it thru: god heard 'em but their time has come
people who didn't pray and make it thru: their time hasn't come
people who didn't pray and didn't make it thru: ...well...what did you expect

God works in mysterious ways. :judge:

[Noddy]

To paraphrase a great speaker I once heard, "if we are eager to glorify the Lord while we live, should we not be as eager to glorify him in our death."


Osama bin Laden?

Ok, who is this great speaker?

tangent/tangent
The French get a lot of sh!t for their perceived cowardess during the world wars but I submit that it is much harder to get a non-godbot to die "for god and country" than it is a godbot (N.B. francophile I am not (Churchill was though ))

[Vorian Atreides]

Osama bin Laden?
ObL would've used "you" and "your" instead of "we" and "our".

[Noddy]

ObL would've used "you" and "your" instead of "we" and "our".

prolly

I'd wager he's referring to Ravi Zacharias

[Vorian Atreides]

prolly

I'd wager he's referring to Ravi Zacharias
Dietrich Bonhoffer.

[Descalzo]

1. You didn't have the ability to create the environment your kids are in
2. Yuo didn't have the ability to create your kids the way you want them to be
3. You're not omnipotent
4. You're not omniscient

We've been here before. I think it comes down to a variation of the Irresistable Force/Immovable Object argument?

[abt5]

We've been here before. I think it comes down to a variation of the Irresistable Force/Immovable Object argument?

How?

[Noddy]

Dietrich Bonhoffer.

Oh, assuming he meant he saw the speaker live, he's much older than I would've guessed

[Noddy]

Nope.

that's it?

[QMO]

1. You didn't have the ability to create the environment your kids are in
2. Yuo didn't have the ability to create your kids the way you want them to be
3. You're not omnipotent
4. You're not omniscientYou aren't making sense.

You imply that you agree that correct parenting doesn't always include doing whatever the child may ask. I assume that you also understand that good parenting isn't always what the children want.

Why do you assume that the environment that we're in is not the right one? (#1)

Has Vorian Atredies said somewhere that he doesn't believe that God wants us to have free will? (#2)

Why do you assume that an omnipotent and omniscient being would agree with you on how to raise His children?

Do you not have kids, or not spend a lot of time with them, or something? Because many of these ideas that you seem to support about prayer don't make sense in the context of children asking things of their parents. Especially when you take into account the different perspective between God and His children. We tend to think of this life as all there is, even when we know better, for example.

These weird ideas about prayer that many of the atheists in this thread are trying to discuss make more sense in the context of input and output of a computer, or the context of whether a machine is operating as designed. Do many people from the Judeo-Christian tradition really think of prayer like that? I think some Eastern religions think of prayer as more of a mechanical thing (you know, water-powered prayer wheels and stuff).

[TheGillotine]

Do you not have kids, or not spend a lot of time with them, or something?

Good question. Would you consider someone a good parent if more than half their children didn't know he/she existed?

[QMO]

For those curious: A $2.4 million study to test prayer on the outcomes of heart surgery was performed. They had 3 groups. Those prayed for that knew it, those prayed for and didn't know it, those not prayed for and didn't know it.

The only difference was the the people that were prayed for and knew it had slightly higher complication rates. Probably due the stress of knowing people were praying for them

...

Obviously the religious say you can't test prayer so this doesn't mean anything to them. But, to an outside observer, prayer had no real effect.Maybe I don't know enough about the study. How did they keep the family* and friends* of the patients from praying for them?

* Normally those that would be praying with the most sincerity and faith, both necessary components to effective prayer, according to most Christians.

[Mr. Micro]

Maybe I don't know enough about the study. How did they keep the family* and friends* of the patients from praying for them?

* Normally those that would be praying with the most sincerity and faith, both necessary components to effective prayer, according to most Christians.

I don't believe they mentioned anything to the family and friends. I think the study was focused on the power of prayer in numbers and possibly from strangers and they left friends and family to do as they normally do.

Not just to you, but to Christians and all religious in general:
Could you not pray sincerely and faithfully if your preacher asked you to pray for xxxx to have a speedy recovery with no complications? Or does God only answer prayers about immediate family members?

Do you think the results would have been different if they only had close family members pray? Or would you argue that you can't test God/prayer?

[Descalzo]

How?

Well, you seem to be implying that God, being all-powerful, could create an environment in which we can have Meaningful Free Will, but also where our Free Will is pretty much meaningless. It's a grammatically correct yet logically nonsensical sentence.

[Descalzo]

Not just to you, but to Christians and all religious in general:
Could you not pray sincerely and faithfully if your preacher asked you to pray for xxxx to have a speedy recovery with no complications? Or does God only answer prayers about immediate family members?



I think I could. But I usually pray 'harder' for my close family members. I suspect that this is a failing.

I think testing prayer is extremely difficult. One of the things to remember about prayer: it is admitted to not always 'work' even by people who really believe in it. Even by people who believe that they have seen God heal the sick. The Bible is full of people who die, surrounded by prophets or apostles. Sometimes it's just time for a person to die. Jesus didn't raise everyone from the dead. And (assuming the biblical account to be correct, of course) we have nothing to suggest that Lazarus is still alive.

Hoestly, it makes me wonder as to His true purpose in healing the sick.

[QMO]

I don't believe they mentioned anything to the family and friends. I think the study was focused on the power of prayer in numbers and possibly from strangers and they left friends and family to do as they normally do.

Not just to you, but to Christians and all religious in general:
Could you not pray sincerely and faithfully if your preacher asked you to pray for xxxx to have a speedy recovery with no complications? Or does God only answer prayers about immediate family members?Let me pose to you a couple of questions that may help you think about my concern with the study:

If a bunch of people that don't know your child (they only know part of his name and that he has cancer) write you letters, many of which are copy-paste emails, to do something for your child, will that mean the same thing as your kid's friends and your other children all writing you individual letters?

While thinking about that question, and remembering that friends and family are likely praying for all three groups similarly:

If you're testing for the effects of Radon gas on lung cancer, would it make sense to test groups of heavy smokers?

Do you think the results would have been different if they only had close family members pray?I think that doing this kind of test on the effects of prayer has at least two major difficulties:
1) Because prayer is such a personal thing, it's impossible to set up situations that are identical.
2) Even supposing you could set up two situations/people that are identical in every way and ask one to pray and the other not to, it would be like withholding the antidote from one to test the whether the antidote really works.
Or would you argue that you can't test God/prayer?From my experience, I can tell you that God really answers prayers. You're welcome and encouraged to gain your own experience in the matter.

I think you need to look into context for whether God wants us to test him. In some ways he's more than eager for us to test Him. We are specifically instructed to ask Him for knowledge, we are told to try Him in the matter of tithing, etc.

On the other hand, pretending that you're doing something because you're sincerely looking for information or trying to resolve doubts while in reality looking for ways to mock or ridicule... Well, lets just say that we're not capable of fooling God, and he has warned us against doing that kind of thing.

[Paul Brand]

Regarding the double blind aspect of the prayer study, I don't think God would give preference to those who were randomly selected to be prayed for. Even the control group could be contaminated by the power of God. How can the experiment be blind, when the person, whose actions we are testing, isn't blind to who is in the control group, and who is not?

Regarding higher complication rate amongst those who knew they were prayed for. The 7% gap is statistically significant, but not by a wide margin. I don't really see added stress as being a major factor. If I know someone is praying for me, I usually see it as an empathetic action, and that would lower my stress levels. Perhaps some people don't want to be prayed for? Perhaps some people were stressed who really wanted to be able to skew the study in favour of prayer? Perhaps God doesn't like to be put to the test, and skewed the results to spite the Templeton Foundation? Perhaps some people really detest religious people, and were angered by the fact they were being prayed for? I don't see a plausible attribution here.

[abt5]

Well, you seem to be implying that God, being all-powerful, could create an environment in which we can have Meaningful Free Will, but also where our Free Will is pretty much meaningless. It's a grammatically correct yet logically nonsensical sentence.

Not at all. I understand they are disjoint. So which one is it? People aren't christians the one making the claim that "God knows what you're going to do/God is everywhere/God knows where you're going after you die"

[QMO]

Not at all. I understand they are disjoint. So which one is it? People aren't christians the one making the claim that "God knows what you're going to do/God is everywhere/God knows where you're going after you die"You sound like you're claiming that the fact that I know my child well enough to know what decision they'll make in some circumstances means they don't have free will in those cases.

I disagree.

Now, if they were to have no responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make, then I would say that their free will was meaningless/nonexistent, whether I knew what they would choose in advance or not.

[TheGillotine]

You sound like you're claiming that the fact that I know my child well enough to know what decision they'll make in some circumstances means they don't have free will in those cases.

I disagree.

Now, if they were to have no responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make, then I would say that their free will was meaningless/nonexistent, whether I knew what they would choose in advance or not.

If you never saw or communicated with your child in any way, would you send hired goons to torture your child if he/she didn't love you?

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

If you never saw or communicated with your child in any way, would you send hired goons to torture your child if he/she didn't love you?

Mormons don't believe in the eternal torture & hellfire stuff, so your question doesn't really work.

[abt5]

Mormons don't believe in the eternal torture & hellfire stuff, so your question doesn't really work.

we're talking about mormonism? I'm sure mormons believe in hell, because I saw it on broadway.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

we're talking about mormonism? I'm sure mormons believe in hell, because I saw it on broadway.

No, we're not talking specifically about Mormonism, but Gill was asking if it was right for God to torture his children (That's what he was getting at anyways). He was asking this to a Mormon who probably doesn't believe in eternal damnation.

[Noddy]

...I don't think God...
*shivers* ( would you listen to yourself! )


Regarding higher complication rate amongst those who knew they were prayed for. The 7% gap is statistically significant, but not by a wide margin.
The width of the margin is irrelevant.

I don't really see added stress as being a major factor.
Oh, well then...
So then, what is the major factor that explains the statistically significant difference? A spiteful god?


If I know someone is praying for me, I usually see it as an empathetic action, and that would lower my stress levels. Perhaps some people don't want to be prayed for? Perhaps some people were stressed who really wanted to be able to skew the study in favour of prayer?
They said they didn't know but it was conjectured that it may have possibly increased stress due to the 'omg this must be really serious if they're bringing in the prayer squad' factor.

Perhaps God doesn't like to be put to the test, and skewed the results to spite the Templeton Foundation?
Oh, perhaps you do understand well the mind of your god.

Perhaps some people really detest religious people, and were angered by the fact they were being prayed for?
Just in case these are legit attempts to explain the statistically significant difference, what % of the sample do you suspect would've been angered?

I don't see a plausible attribution here.
It being attributable to your spiteful god is pretty plausible, no?

[abt5]

the actuary in Paul Brand has died

[Paul Brand]

The width of the margin is irrelevant.

the actuary in Paul Brand has died

Statistical significance is typically defined at a 95% threshold. Real actuaries such as yourself know that this is not just an arbitrary number, and whether or not statistical significance is achieved at 90% or 99% thresholds, is irrelevant.

[Paul Brand]

*shivers* ( would you listen to yourself! )You can do better than that. You can't blind God to scientific experimentation on himself. It's just beyond obvious. You are smart enough to figure that out.

Just in case these are legit attempts to explain the statistically significant difference, what % of the sample do you suspect would've been angered? You parsed a single thought into 6 replies, and if you had only read a sentence further you would have had your question answered. You are only exercising in a quote mining exercise by responding to every sentence fragment, and ignoring the overarching thought.

[Klaymen]

Could you not pray sincerely and faithfully if your preacher asked you to pray for xxxx to have a speedy recovery with no complications? Or does God only answer prayers about immediate family members?

I'll join in with the rest of the congregation in prayer, but I wouldn't necessarily have high expections if only because I'm not convinced that I know personally what God wants to do in this situation. But if someone else thinks they do, let it be.

[Klaymen]

If you never saw or communicated with your child in any way, would you send hired goons to torture your child if he/she didn't love you?

If you tried to commuincate to a stranger, and the stranger rejected your help, the stranger has to accept the results of his own fate. I don't think just anyone should be considered a "child" of God.

[abt5]

If you tried to commuincate to a stranger, and the stranger rejected your help, the stranger has to accept the results of his own fate. I don't think just anyone should be considered a "child" of God.

oh dear

[V1per41]

You can do better than that. You can't blind God to scientific experimentation on himself. It's just beyond obvious. You are smart enough to figure that out...

Why is the main factor to determine if you get into heaven or not, you level of gullibility?

Yahweh will only let you in if you believe in him (or the other him), while making sure to not give us any evidence (IMO, or any definitive evidence IYO) that he (it?) actually exists.

[Paul Brand]

Why is the main factor to determine if you get into heaven or not, you level of gullibility?

Yahweh will only let you in if you believe in him (or the other him), while making sure to not give us any evidence (IMO, or any definitive evidence IYO) that he (it?) actually exists.

???

I think you are missing the context of my point, i.e. the [in]validity of double blind experimentation on deities. If I'm wrong, then I have no idea how you are connecting the dots. I'm saying that double blind experimentation on deities is not blind, because deities are not blind to them being experimented on.

[abt5]

???

I think you are missing the context of my point, i.e. the [in]validity of double blind experimentation on deities. If I'm wrong, then I have no idea how you are connecting the dots. I'm saying that double blind experimentation on deities is not blind, because deities are not blind to them being experimented on.

so any post-hoc studies on prayers - genuine prayers and were not under experimentation at the time - using observational data would invalidate prayers that have already occured?

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

Why do people insist on trying to outsmart God with statistical studies?

Oh don't worry bud we're not really measuring anything..wait just kidding, we totally were. We got you this time God!

[abt5]

Why do people insist on trying to outsmart God with statistical studies?

Oh don't worry bud we're not really measuring anything..wait just kidding, we totally were. We got you this time God!

how would god know? more importantly, knowing that i can invalidate any prayer now by doing post-hoc studies on them makes me slightly powerful.

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

how would god know? more importantly, knowing that i can invalidate any prayer now by doing post-hoc studies on them makes me slightly powerful.

Really? You want me to explain how a supernatural being would know you're trying to pull one over?

I don't personally think prayer is something that can be measured or studied or invalidated. So no, that doesn't make you powerful.

[abt5]

Really? You want me to explain how a supernatural being would know you're trying to pull one over?

I don't personally think prayer is something that can be measured or studied or invalidated. So no, that doesn't make you powerful.

is prayer useful? The bible says if you pray you will get what you want. Does the Bible lie? People also say prayers cannot be tested and god will not answer prayers that are under experimentation. But ANY data can be used as observational data in a statistical analysis. So I can invalidate any prayer - and god will have to abandon these prayers whenever I wish to do so. So yes, god has to listen to me. thanks

[Paul Brand]

so any post-hoc studies on prayers - genuine prayers and were not under experimentation at the time - using observational data would invalidate prayers that have already occured?

I wouldn't go so far to suggest that all studies are useless. In some ways, the Templeton study is useful, but not nearly as useful as some people think. It could be used to falsify certain notions of prayer. For example, if someone had the notion that those who pray will necessarily get what they want. I think the Templeton study is useful in falsifying such a notion. Personally, I don't have a notion of a god who applies favoritism to those who were randomly selected to be prayed for. And I would go further than that. I'm doubtful that prayer makes a detectable difference in the health of people being prayed for. Francis Collins (a Christian and biologist who was the leader of the Human Genome Project), says that in his experience, he hasn't seen any cases where there was a clear case of miraculous intervention with regard to the health of a person. I hear people talk about being healed, sometimes they are indifferentiable from natural recovery, and sometimes they aren't easy to explain.

I once heard through church of a pastor's wife being healed of a life threatening condition. It all didn't feel right to me. A few people insisted we identify it as a miracle. I read her blog, and I could sense that her interpretations of her life experiences tended to have a heavy dose of hyperbole. She ended up dying a week later, but due to something totally unrelated.

Perhaps miracles of healing occur, perhaps not. If they do occur, I think they are infrequent.

[Gyudon]

People also say prayers cannot be tested and god will not answer prayers that are under experimentation.

My wife told me that there are psychics that can read minds and predict the future. I tell her that we should go see one (that she approves of) to test this theory out since it would be very helpful for our future if such a thing existed. She says it's not worth it since they don't "work all the time" and it's hard to find the real deal.

So I ask why even the famous ones can't show a statistically significant number of accurate readings (vs pure chance). She says "you just can't apply science to it!" :sad:

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

is prayer useful? The bible says if you pray you will get what you want. Does the Bible lie? People also say prayers cannot be tested and god will not answer prayers that are under experimentation. But ANY data can be used as observational data in a statistical analysis. So I can invalidate any prayer - and god will have to abandon these prayers whenever I wish to do so. So yes, god has to listen to me. thanks

We've had this discussion before. Be more creative.

[Buck]

Praying has been done billions of times in the past -- it never did anything to anyone -- no experiment needed. What's needed is waking up from the brainwashed delusions.

[V1per41]

My wife told me that there are psychics that can read minds and predict the future. I tell her that we should go see one (that she approves of) to test this theory out since it would be very helpful for our future if such a thing existed. She says it's not worth it since they don't "work all the time" and it's hard to find the real deal.

So I ask why even the famous ones can't show a statistically significant number of accurate readings (vs pure chance). She says "you just can't apply science to it!" :sad:

And you are still married to this woman? I would find it very hard to respect someone that held such views.

[TheGillotine]

If you tried to commuincate to a stranger, and the stranger rejected your help, the stranger has to accept the results of his own fate. I don't think just anyone should be considered a "child" of God.

"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."

To fix your analogy:
A horde of raving men run up to you on the street and each one insists that you need saving from an invisible monster and each one insists that *he* is the only one that can save you, and only if you *believe* that the invisible monster is real and that his invisible friend can help you. Each one of them describes the monster and the invisible friend (sometimes more than one friend) in wildly different ways, and each of them spouts insanities like "the first woman was made from a rib" and "the world is going to end with dragons and whatnot" and "you shall not permit a witch to live". If you choose to ignore the horde of lunatics and go on your way, and for some reason one of the lunatics is right, his invisible friend drags you to a pit and throws you in with the invisible monster. You have to accept the results of your own fate. You deserve it, because you're evil for choosing to ignore the warning.

Does this sound right to you? If not, point out how this is different than choosing/ignoring a religion.

[Gyudon]

Haha yes.. She's usually reasonable but on a small number of things, often something her nutty mother told her, she will just believe despite compelling evidence to the contrary. There are enough other qualities to stupidly love anyway :shrug:.

[QMO]

is prayer useful? The bible says if you pray you will get what you want...Not quite. In context it says that if you pray with faith you get what you ask for.

Now, if you really have faith, maybe you wouldn't ask anything contrary to God's will.

Consider that perhaps:
Faith is more than belief.
Gratitude is more than thanks.
Obedience is more than compliance.

[V1per41]

Consider that perhaps religion is completely man made and in the long run is detrimental the the survival and scientific progress of our species.

[abt5]

We've had this discussion before. Be more creative.

we did? i certainly dont remember. if we did then clearly u wouldnt mind reciting your elegant response again?

[Klaymen]

"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."

This was Jesus praying out loud. It was not a blanket statement about whether the divine Father/child relationship existed between God and any individual person.

[Klaymen]

Praying has been done billions of times in the past -- it never did anything to anyone -- no experiment needed. What's needed is waking up from the brainwashed delusions.

Why don't you just write
:lalala:
It's much simpler.

[Noddy]

"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."

To fix your analogy:
A horde of raving men run up to you on the street and each one insists that you need saving from an invisible monster and each one insists that *he* is the only one that can save you, and only if you *believe* that the invisible monster is real and that his invisible friend can help you. Each one of them describes the monster and the invisible friend (sometimes more than one friend) in wildly different ways, and each of them spouts insanities like "the first woman was made from a rib" and "the world is going to end with dragons and whatnot" and "you shall not permit a witch to live". If you choose to ignore the horde of lunatics and go on your way, and for some reason one of the lunatics is right, his invisible friend drags you to a pit and throws you in with the invisible monster. You have to accept the results of your own fate. You deserve it, because you're evil for choosing to ignore the warning.

Does this sound right to you? If not, point out how this is different than choosing/ignoring a religion.
:like:

[TheGillotine]

This was Jesus praying out loud. It was not a blanket statement about whether the divine Father/child relationship existed between God and any individual person.

First, I note that you did not find issue with my analogy. That is disappointing but interesting.

On the Lord's Prayer
"But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Now, unless Jesus speaks to himself in the 2nd person, I'd say he's telling other people to refer to God as "our father".

Also
Romans 8:14-17
"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba,[g] Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory."

2 Corinthians 6:18
"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty."

1 John 3:1
"See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him."

[Descalzo]

This was Jesus praying out loud. It was not a blanket statement about whether the divine Father/child relationship existed between God and any individual person.

I thought that God was the father of the entire human race was a pretty universal Christian thing. I thought it went throughout pretty much all of monotheism. I guess I was wrong.

[Descalzo]

First, I note that you did not find issue with my analogy. That is disappointing but interesting.


Which issues in particular are you referring to?

[TheGillotine]

Which issues in particular are you referring to?

I asked if he saw any problem with this analogy:

A horde of raving men run up to you on the street and each one insists that you need saving from an invisible monster and each one insists that *he* is the only one that can save you, and only if you *believe* that the invisible monster is real and that his invisible friend can help you. Each one of them describes the monster and the invisible friend (sometimes more than one friend) in wildly different ways, and each of them spouts insanities like "the first woman was made from a rib" and "the world is going to end with dragons and whatnot" and "you shall not permit a witch to live". If you choose to ignore the horde of lunatics and go on your way, and for some reason one of the lunatics is right, his invisible friend drags you to a pit and throws you in with the invisible monster. You have to accept the results of your own fate. You deserve it, because you're evil for choosing to ignore the warning.

[Gyudon]

A horde of raving men run up to you on the street and each one insists that you need saving from an invisible monster and each one insists that *he* is the only one that can save you, and only if you *believe* that the invisible monster is real and that his invisible friend can help you. Each one of them describes the monster and the invisible friend (sometimes more than one friend) in wildly different ways, and each of them spouts insanities like "the first woman was made from a rib" and "the world is going to end with dragons and whatnot" and "you shall not permit a witch to live". If you choose to ignore the horde of lunatics and go on your way, and for some reason one of the lunatics is right, his invisible friend drags you to a pit and throws you in with the invisible monster. You have to accept the results of your own fate. You deserve it, because you're evil for choosing to ignore the warning.

Perhaps it is the devil controlling my mind to make me to think that this is not far from what religion is. Heads - God forgives me provided I'm a good person, tails - I don't have to go to church :tup:.

ETA: Missed the believe or be evil part. If God exists in the loving form typically described, he'd be down with me just being good and not going to church.

[QMO]

I thought that God was the father of the entire human race was a pretty universal Christian thing. I thought it went throughout pretty much all of monotheism. I guess I was wrong.It seems to me that the Bible refers to us as Children of God in two ways. One is that every one of the human race is a child of God. The other (not mutually exclusive, IMO) is that only those that follow the Lord are His children.

I think that some people see only one of those two ways.

[Klaymen]

Now, unless Jesus speaks to himself in the 2nd person, I'd say he's telling other people to refer to God as "our father".


Correct. But just because you choose to refer to someone as Father, that does not necessarily make you their child.

From John 8:

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus didn't seem to think that God was the Father of all people.

[TheGillotine]

Jesus didn't seem to think that God was the Father of all people.

So you're saying that all people who don't believe in the Christian God are the spawn of Satan, the personification of evil. And I'm supposed to take this how?

Plus I'd like your take on my analogy.

[Klaymen]

A horde of raving men run up to you on the street and each one insists that you need saving from an invisible monster and each one insists that *he* is the only one that can save you, and only if you *believe* that the invisible monster is real and that his invisible friend can help you. Each one of them describes the monster and the invisible friend (sometimes more than one friend) in wildly different ways, and each of them spouts insanities like "the first woman was made from a rib" and "the world is going to end with dragons and whatnot" and "you shall not permit a witch to live". If you choose to ignore the horde of lunatics and go on your way, and for some reason one of the lunatics is right, his invisible friend drags you to a pit and throws you in with the invisible monster. You have to accept the results of your own fate. You deserve it, because you're evil for choosing to ignore the warning.

Does this sound right to you? If not, point out how this is different than choosing/ignoring a religion.

No, it doesn't sound right. Attempting to speak from a Christian point of view:

1. There isn't a horde of raving men representing each available religion on the street ambushing you.

2. You don't need to be saved from an invisible monster.

3. A lot of people believe some of the things you call insanities.

4. What we deserve is independent of our decisions about religion.

[gosuruss]

Of course #4 falco. Unfortunately, That is not what the major religions teach. This should be obvious given their existence as the major religions in 2011. Think about it.

[Klaymen]

... every one of the human race is a child of God.

I'd be curious to find out where the basis for this comes from. In the NIV I searched Child + God and here are the most relevant verses (but not all instances):

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Luke 20:35-36
But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

John 1:12-13
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

John 11:51-52
He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

Romans 8:14
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

Galatians 3:26
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

I John 3:1
See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

I John 3:10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

Revelation 21:7-8
Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

No, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that all people are children of God. Created by God? Yes.

[Klaymen]

Of course #4 falco. Unfortunately, That is not what the major religions teach. This should be obvious given their existence as the major religions in 2011. Think about it. Please elaborate. I'm prone to never getting the obvious. Which makes me ... oblivious? :)

[TheGillotine]

No, it doesn't sound right. Attempting to speak from a Christian point of view:

1. There isn't a horde of raving men representing each available religion on the street ambushing you.

2. You don't need to be saved from an invisible monster.

3. A lot of people believe some of the things you call insanities.

4. What we deserve is independent of our decisions about religion.

Now of course I have to remind you that it's an analogy, not a literal discription lol.

1) The horde of raving men represents the multitude of seemingly batshit religions preaching to you.

2) Nearly all religions teach that you need to be "saved", usually from some sort of sinful nature.

3) A lot of people are insane or believe insane things. That doesn't make them more likely.

4) Traditional Christian doctrine teaches that the only way into heaven is to believe in and ask forgiveness from Jesus Christ. Those who do not will be put through the winepress of God's anger.

[Buck]

I have to remind you though:

Using Bible to prove God is circular logic; using Bible to prove religion is circular logic as well.

Because, humans wrote Bible -- human religion and God creators wrote the scriptures. They wrote it to coerce faithfuls with lies like sky tyrant, lake of sulfur and acid ... But, those are easily recognizable human-lies.

[Klaymen]

Now of course I have to remind you that it's an analogy, not a literal discription lol.
Your analogy is so far from a literal description that I don't think it really helps.

[magillaG]

Now of course I have to remind you that it's an analogy, not a literal discription lol.

1) The horde of raving men represents the multitude of seemingly batshit religions preaching to you.

So you are talking about many religions. Your premise seems to be that they are crazy. OK.


2) Nearly all religions teach that you need to be "saved", usually from some sort of sinful nature.

Does Judaism teach that we must be saved? Hinduism? Buddhism? Confucianism? I don't think they do. I don't know that much about them.


3) A lot of people are insane or believe insane things. That doesn't make them more likely.

Most people who have ever lived have been religious in one way or another.
From wikipedia: Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms...
I don't see how, but definition, they could possibly be insane. Wrong maybe, but not insane. It's almost like your "analogy" is simply an irrational rant against religion, and you don't care whether what you say makes any sense at all.


4) Traditional Christian doctrine teaches that the only way into heaven is to believe in and ask forgiveness from Jesus Christ. Those who do not will be put through the winepress of God's anger.
I'm not sure what "traditional Christian doctrine" is. I thought, from your first point, that you were talking about many religions. I guess now we are only talking about Christianity. From this quick google search (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_practices.htm):

From the "means of salvation" row:
Catholics: Received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance
No mention of "belief in and asking forgiveness from Jesus Christ."

From the "Eternal Hell" row:
Presbyterian: Affirmed by some. "In a 1996 Presbyterian Panel survey only 51 percent of members and 46 percent of pastors said they believed in hell."
So even thought you need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, nobody has gone to hell? That's strange.

From the "Other religions" row:
Orthodox: "The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism.... This view holds firmly to the centrality of Christ... yet acknowledges that salvation can be found outside Christianity." Again, apparently you can be saved without believing in Christ.

Even a quick google search shows that there is something more complicated going on that what you describe. Only the Baptist column seems wholly consistent with your description.

I do think an analogy can describe what you are doing pretty well: it's like you built up a man made of straw, and then tore him down.

I am beginning to think it may be better, though, to see arguments like this as part of another fine Western tradition that is maybe not quite as old as Christianity, but seems intimately related to it: the idea of progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress), and the cultural arrogance that can go with it. We have a long tradition of writing off indigenous people who appear to us to be more backwards, and less advanced in morals or technology. It's like an Enlightened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) version of converting the heathens, or invading the Holy Land. Religious people are less advanced- they believe in superstitious relics of a less perfect past- so there is no need to learn anything about religion. It's better to talk about how stupid it is, because you don't need to read up about leprechology before disproving them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins#cite_note-99)

[TheGillotine]

So you are talking about many religions. Your premise seems to be that they are crazy. OK.

You are crazy if you believe that life was created through an incantation spell or that a rib-woman being fooled by a talking snake is the root cause of all our problems. Maybe not during the middle ages, but to hold such a belief nowadays is to deny the obvious reality of the situation, and I would consider denial of reality against evidence to be insane.


Does Judaism teach that we must be saved? Hinduism? Buddhism? Confucianism? I don't think they do. I don't know that much about them.

Judaism is a more or less extinct religion, but it does teach that God will punish unbelievers. Buddhism is atheistic, and is actually my favorite of the "big 5" religions (not saying it's right). It does teach that the enlightenment is the only path to true happiness... but I'll give it a break. I've never seen *anyone* talk to me about becoming Buddhist or really even talk about, anyways. Same with Confucianism and Hinduism.

Most people who have ever lived have been religious in one way or another.
From wikipedia: Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms...
I don't see how, but definition, they could possibly be insane. Wrong maybe, but not insane. It's almost like your "analogy" is simply an irrational rant against religion, and you don't care whether what you say makes any sense at all.
You should note in the original I'm talking about insane ideas. The idea that an omnipotent spirit "spoke" the world into existence some thousand years ago is insane, given everything we know about the world today.

I'm not sure what "traditional Christian doctrine" is. I thought, from your first point, that you were talking about many religions. I guess now we are only talking about Christianity. From this quick google search (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_practices.htm):

The person I replied to was speaking "from a Christian perspective", and a replied based on that perspective.

From the "means of salvation" row:
Catholics: Received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance
No mention of "belief in and asking forgiveness from Jesus Christ."

Do you know what penance is?


From the "Eternal Hell" row:
Presbyterian: Affirmed by some. "In a 1996 Presbyterian Panel survey only 51 percent of members and 46 percent of pastors said they believed in hell."
So even thought you need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, nobody has gone to hell? That's strange.

That's a product of the modernization of western religion. Those 49% who don't believe in Hell probably aren't following doctrine so much as they are creating a new belief system based on personal preference.

From the "Other religions" row:
Orthodox: "The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism.... This view holds firmly to the centrality of Christ... yet acknowledges that salvation can be found outside Christianity." Again, apparently you can be saved without believing in Christ.

That view generally holds that people who have not heard the message of Christ may obtain salvation through general good works and acceptance of a "higher power". Those who are very familiar with Christianity and deny the message are Hell-bound rebels.

Even a quick google search shows that there is something more complicated going on that what you describe. Only the Baptist column seems wholly consistent with your description.

Off the top of my head I can think of more. Calvinists for one, are even more fun.

I do think an analogy can describe what you are doing pretty well: it's like you built up a man made of straw, and then tore him down.

More likely you aren't familiar with your own doctrine, or the beliefs of the majority of "real" believers. You're probably thinking of the watered down Oprah believers. I'm from the Bible belt. I get God warriors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mDLsyn6ns).


I am beginning to think it may be better, though, to see arguments like this as part of another fine Western tradition that is maybe not quite as old as Christianity, but seems intimately related to it: the idea of progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_Progress), and the cultural arrogance that can go with it. We have a long tradition of writing off indigenous people who appear to us to be more backwards, and less advanced in morals or technology. It's like an Enlightened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) version of converting the heathens, or invading the Holy Land. Religious people are less advanced- they believe in superstitious relics of a less perfect past- so there is no need to learn anything about religion. It's better to talk about how stupid it is, because you don't need to read up about leprechology before disproving them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins#cite_note-99)
And therein lies your misunderstanding of my position. My basic position is not anti-religion. I'm pro-truth, and those religions that teach things that are objectively false should be called out on those falsehoods. "Progress" has nothing to do with it. Novelty is no more relevant than Tradition when judging the validity of a claim. All that matters is how true it is.

And this naive Romantification of primitivism is pretty annoying. It's all fun and games playing out in the woods until you realize childbirth just became a death sentence.

[magillaG]

You are crazy if you believe that life was created through an incantation spell or that a rib-woman being fooled by a talking snake is the root cause of all our problems. Maybe not during the middle ages, but to hold such a belief nowadays is to deny the obvious reality of the situation, and I would consider denial of reality against evidence to be insane.
I guess it doesn't matter the way the rest of the English speaking world uses the word "insane". It's like you are denying the obvious reality of the situation against evidence.


Judaism is a more or less extinct religion, but it does teach that God will punish unbelievers. Buddhism is atheistic, and is actually my favorite of the "big 5" religions (not saying it's right). It does teach that the enlightenment is the only path to true happiness... but I'll give it a break. I've never seen *anyone* talk to me about becoming Buddhist or really even talk about, anyways. Same with Confucianism and Hinduism.
Your original post simply referred to "religion". So did your second post.


You should note in the original I'm talking about insane ideas. The idea that an omnipotent spirit "spoke" the world into existence some thousand years ago is insane, given everything we know about the world today.

We are back to your single definition of the word "insane", in opposition to the way the rest of the world uses the word. OK.


The person I replied to was speaking "from a Christian perspective", and a replied based on that perspective.

Your reply didn't seem relevant to many Christian perspectives either.


Do you know what penance is?

I have some idea. I'm not sure what your point is. Baptism, not only belief, would seem to be important to Catholics.


That's a product of the modernization of western religion. Those 49% who don't believe in Hell probably aren't following doctrine so much as they are creating a new belief system based on personal preference.

So the Baptist view that dates back to, at the earliest, what, 1500 years after Christ. I guess you claim that is true doctrine, but what people believe 2000 years after Christ isn't? That looks to me to be another ad-hoc redefinition of a word.


That view generally holds that people who have not heard the message of Christ may obtain salvation through general good works and acceptance of a "higher power". Those who are very familiar with Christianity and deny the message are Hell-bound rebels.

That's not what wikipedia says "inclusivism" means. It's not what this guy (http://www.grace-bible.org/mattsblog/?p=182) says it means either. In any case, even if you are correct, that still isn't in line with your analogy.



Off the top of my head I can think of more. Calvinists for one, are even more fun.

Presbyterians are Calvinists.


More likely you aren't familiar with your own doctrine, or the beliefs of the majority of "real" believers. You're probably thinking of the watered down Oprah believers. I'm from the Bible belt. I get God warriors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mDLsyn6ns).

A relatively small group of people you have encountered or heard from in a small part of the world over a small period of time don't necessarily represent all religion, or even all Christianity, or even all Baptists. (American Baptists are much more liberal than Southern Baptists, and even Southern Baptists have become much conservative since the 70s.)


And therein lies your misunderstanding of my position. My basic position is not anti-religion. I'm pro-truth, and those religions that teach things that are objectively false should be called out on those falsehoods. "Progress" has nothing to do with it. Novelty is no more relevant than Tradition when judging the validity of a claim. All that matters is how true it is.

You claim you are not "anti-religion", and "Progress" has nothing to do with it. Your position only seems to be that it's only the slow accumulation of truths, since the Middle Ages when maybe it was "OK to believe that a rib-woman being fooled by a talking snake is the root cause of all our problems", that now shows that anybody who believes religion is insane. I see some inconsistencies there.



And this naive Romantification of primitivism is pretty annoying. It's all fun and games playing out in the woods until you realize childbirth just became a death sentence.
Where have I romanticized anything? And where have I even talked about primitivism?

[TheGillotine]

You claim you are not "anti-religion", and "Progress" has nothing to do with it. Your position only seems to be that it's only the slow accumulation of truths, since the Middle Ages when maybe it was "OK to believe that a rib-woman being fooled by a talking snake is the root cause of all our problems", that now shows that anybody who believes religion is insane. I see some inconsistencies there.



Where have I romanticized anything? And where have I even talked about primitivism?


Your rant against "progress" seemed primitivist to me. On further reflection it's probably more like social relativism, which has its own problems which I don't want to get into here.

Discovery tends to be chronologically progressive. That's a simple fact - new discoveries tend to overturn old beliefs, rather than old beliefs overturning new discoveries. The research done on human behavior, geology, biology, and other scientific fields, and the free availability and distribution of those discoveries, makes false beliefs such as "rib-woman" no longer intellectually viable.

I stress that I'm not taking the Dawkins "religion is a mind-virus and religious people are insane" position. My position is that the ideas espoused by many religions appear insane to someone who possesses a modern understanding of the natural world. When I originally said "each of them spouts insanities like "the first woman was made from a rib"...", that's what I meant. I did not mean that all religious people are insane. Because you seem to have a problem with my liberal use of that word, I'm going to use "ridiculous" instead, because that's basically what I mean. Most religious people, at least the more intelligent ones, play down or discount the more ridiculous parts of their religion. What they, and you, don't understand, is that ignoring the ridiculous ideas embedded in your religion does not make them go away. Keep in mind that these religions are claiming absolute truth, and if their claims are valid, you shouldn't have to ignore parts of it when it becomes apparent that they are untrue.

[magillaG]

Your rant against "progress" seemed primitivist to me. On further reflection it's probably more like social relativism, which has its own problems which I don't want to get into here.

Discovery tends to be chronologically progressive. That's a simple fact - new discoveries tend to overturn old beliefs, rather than old beliefs overturning new discoveries. The research done on human behavior, geology, biology, and other scientific fields, and the free availability and distribution of those discoveries, makes false beliefs such as "rib-woman" no longer intellectually viable.

I stress that I'm not taking the Dawkins "religion is a mind-virus and religious people are insane" position. My position is that the ideas espoused by many religions appear insane to someone who possesses a modern understanding of the natural world. When I originally said "each of them spouts insanities like "the first woman was made from a rib"...", that's what I meant. I did not mean that all religious people are insane. Because you seem to have a problem with my liberal use of that word, I'm going to use "ridiculous" instead, because that's basically what I mean. Most religious people, at least the more intelligent ones, play down or discount the more ridiculous parts of their religion. What they, and you, don't understand, is that ignoring the ridiculous ideas embedded in your religion does not make them go away. Keep in mind that these religions are claiming absolute truth, and if their claims are valid, you shouldn't have to ignore parts of it when it becomes apparent that they are untrue.

I don't have anything against progress. I just don't think you should generalize to all religion what the least sophisticated of what we might call the "Left Behind" Christians think. I think it is much better to look for what is most true in what religion says. I admit that I didn't appreciate that you weren't trying to make a more Dawkins-like argument.

[TheGillotine]

I don't have anything against progress. I just don't think you should generalize to all religion what the least sophisticated of what we might call the "Left Behind" Christians think. I think it is much better to look for what is most true in what religion says. I admit that I didn't appreciate that you weren't trying to make a more Dawkins-like argument.

Out of curiosity, what *is* true in what "religion" says?

[Klaymen]

Maybe not during the middle ages, but to hold such a belief nowadays is to deny the obvious reality of the situation.


Obvious?!?


You should note in the original I'm talking about insane ideas. The idea that an omnipotent spirit "spoke" the world into existence some thousand years ago is insane, given everything we know about the world today.


What exactly do we know about the world today for sure? If it is so obvious and clear would you consider being less vague with your proof?

Those 49% who don't believe in Hell probably aren't following doctrine so much as they are creating a new belief system based on personal preference.

I agree with you here.


That view generally holds that people who have not heard the message of Christ may obtain salvation through general good works and acceptance of a "higher power". Those who are very familiar with Christianity and deny the message are Hell-bound rebels.

Where are you getting this from?!?

And therein lies your misunderstanding of my position. My basic position is not anti-religion. I'm pro-truth, and those religions that teach things that are objectively false should be called out on those falsehoods. I don't think you are pro-truth as much as you are pro-science.

Again you dismiss religion as false with no way to prove it as such.

[abt5]

Obvious?!?



What exactly do we know about the world today for sure? If it is so obvious and clear would you consider being less vague with your proof?




here we go again, the plead of the insane: we don't know anything for sure! you can't be sure we're not in the matrix. ahhhhh! everything is possible!

[TheGillotine]

Obvious?!?

Yes, I think it's quite obvious that the story about the talking snake isn't true. If you can't see that, that's your problem.


What exactly do we know about the world today for sure? If it is so obvious and clear would you consider being less vague with your proof?

We can know with almost absolute certainty that the world is older than 6,000 years. You want proof? There's a *ton* of proof out there. Go to talkorigins.org and look at some of the discussions there. My personal favorite evidence is this:
We can use certain astronomical methods that I'm not going to get into here to determine how far objects in space are from earth. We can determine with great accuracy that there are galaxies billions of light-years away. If the light from those galaxies travels at light-speed, then the light from those galaxies is at least billions of years old. How do you suppose the light from those galaxies travelled billions of light-years in 6,000 years?


Where are you getting this from?!?

It's a common enough idea. If you talk to evangelists enough you'll hear it.
http://www.gospel.com/blog/index.php/2009/11/19/will-people-who-never-hear-of-jesus-go-to-hell/


I don't think you are pro-truth as much as you are pro-science.

I haven't mentioned science.

Again you dismiss religion as false with no way to prove it as such.

Actually, it's easy to prove it wrong. The Bible says there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago. That has been objectively proven false on every count.

[Noddy]

Perhaps it is the devil controlling my mind to make me to think that this is not far from what religion is. Heads - God forgives me provided I'm a good person, tails - I don't have to go to church :tup:.

If that wasn't meant to be red ( the devil influencing your behavior bit ) then that is a classic example of one of the more infuriating notions that some godbots (theists) hold about some non-godbots (atheists, unbelievers, non- theists etc. )

If coming to the most truthful conclusion regarding the nature of the world
in which you find yourself is important to you then you stand to gain much more than not having to go to church on sunday.


If God exists in the loving form typically described, he'd be down with me just being good and not going to church.

Indeed, why should you burn in a lake of hell fire and damnation for eternity if you lead a good and moral or even noble life?

There is a large segment of the armerican population that believe you will do just that unless you accept jesus as your personal savior.

There are also hordes of Muslims who know for certain that you are going to the hell of their gods creation

[Klaymen]

Indeed, why should you burn in a lake of hell fire and damnation for eternity if you lead a good and moral or even noble life?

Because nobody can.

[Klaymen]

Yes, I think it's quite obvious that the story about the talking snake isn't true. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

If there is a God, there is no reason why this couldn't be true. It will probably be impossible to give concrete proof one way or the other.


We can know with almost absolute certainty that the world is older than 6,000 years.

A lot of Christians wouldn't disagree with this, myself included. But there are some who believe in the 6,000 years.


The Bible says there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago. That has been objectively proven false on every count.
Well I'm way out of my league here. Seems like you can google pros and cons for either side though.

[Noddy]

Because nobody can.

So nobody (not one of gods human creations) is capable of living a good, moral and noble life and so deserves an eternity of torment in a lake of hellfire and damnation unless we admit that we are damned sinners and accept jesubus as our personal saviour?

I encourage you out of your demon haunted world.

[Klaymen]

So nobody (not one of gods human creations) is capable of living a good, moral and noble life and so deserves an eternity of torment in a lake of hellfire and damnation unless we admit that we are damned sinners and accept jesubus as our personal saviour?

I encourage you out of your demon haunted world.

Now you're getting it! :tup: Best we leave the theology about demons for another thread :)

Seriously that is part of the message of the gospel so many miss. Jesus would be just wasting his time down here on earth if he were just giving a refresher course on nice-guy behaviour, in which case he certainly could have skipped the whole nailed to the cross thing.

[Noddy]

Now you're getting it! :tup: Best we leave the theology about demons for another thread :)
Your god is the demon I was referring to.

( And iro the "jesubus being nailed to the cross thingy": the concept of someone else (kind of but not really) being punished for the wrongs of others is immoral. Jesus "the scape goat" Christ)

[TheGillotine]

Originally Posted by Noddy
Indeed, why should you burn in a lake of hell fire and damnation for eternity if you lead a good and moral or even noble life?

Because nobody can.

This is without a doubt *the* most detestable thing about Christianity. The idea that nobody can be good is absolutely disgusting. It's like going into a classroom full of children and telling them "There's no way you can ever succeed at getting your dream occupation. You'll never become a doctor, so you might as well prepare yourself to clean toilets every day." It's complete and utter bullshit. There are many good people in the world. If you can't see that, that's your problem, but I'd rather you didn't teach kids that they're inherently evil.

[TheGillotine]

If there is a God, there is no reason why this couldn't be true. It will probably be impossible to give concrete proof one way or the other.

Right, and if there was a God we could all be invisible pink unicorns in disguise.


Well I'm way out of my league here. Seems like you can google pros and cons for either side though.

Then you're not very familiar with debating creationists. There was no worldwide flood 2,000 years ago. All the "pros" are from idiotic creationists who will literally lie over and over again despite being proven wrong right to their faces. The most obvious evidence against the flood is the survival of the Pyramids at Giza, which were built around 200 years before the theorized date of the flood. And recall that proponents of the Great Flood story say that the flood was so violent that it created most of the mountains and canyons of the world, yet didn't leave any impression whatsoever on the Pyramids at Giza.

So, yeah, there are no pros and cons for the flood story, it's taken from earlier Mesopotamian flood mythology (Gilgamesh and whatnot) because the Bible is mythology. Geddit?

[magillaG]

Out of curiosity, what *is* true in what "religion" says?

I think the idea of original sin has a lot of truth in the sense that evil does seem to exist, and does seem to have momentum- for example, the cycle of violence in the mideast, or even the cycle of violence between east and west europe that ultimately culminated in the world wars.

I also think the idea that love and mercy are inseparable from justice has a lot of truth to it. (Just two examples.)

Since they cannot be falsified through experiments, these religious truths, if they can be called that, require a much more difficult criticism than scientific truths do. I am much more confident in scientific truths, at least in the experimental regime they are tested in. But I think summarizing original sin as "all our problems started with a talking snake" is a little facile.

[TheGillotine]

I think the idea of original sin has a lot of truth in the sense that evil does seem to exist, and does seem to have momentum- for example, the cycle of violence in the mideast, or even the cycle of violence between east and west europe that ultimately culminated in the world wars.[QUOTE]
I don't think you understand the doctrine of original sin. The basic idea is that all people are inherently evil. The fact that it teaches that they obtained this sinful nature by eating fruit should strike you as obviously untrue.

[QUOTE]I also think the idea that love and mercy are inseparable from justice has a lot of truth to it. (Just two examples.)

I don't see how this is a religious idea. Further, mercy is not justice. Mercy is the suspension of justice.

Since they cannot be falsified through experiments, these religious truths, if they can be called that, require a much more difficult criticism than scientific truths do. I am much more confident in scientific truths, at least in the experimental regime they are tested in. But I think summarizing original sin as "all our problems started with a talking snake" is a little facile.
The actual claim of Christianity is that humans became bad when they were fooled by a talking snake. You're looking at this and saying "well some people are bad, so the story is basically true". I'm looking at this and saying "Why attribute the knowledge that people are bad to an untrue story? Why not just accept the knowledge from experience/observation?"

A similar case would be if you told me that the Goldilocks and the 3 Bears story was true because most people seek things in moderation. You ignore the fact that none of the story actually happened and just take certain aspects of it that match reality and claim the whole thing as true. Now, I'm not saying that the Goldilocks story is useless, but at least admit that it's fictional.

[magillaG]

I don't think you understand the doctrine of original sin. The basic idea is that all people are inherently evil. The fact that it teaches that they obtained this sinful nature by eating fruit should strike you as obviously untrue.

As I said before, I think this is a very facile reading. There is a long tradition of also reading the story in a way that is better characterized as metaphor.

[
I don't see how this is a religious idea. Further, mercy is not justice. Mercy is the suspension of justice.

In the Jesus story, Jesus' death achieves both justice and mercy. It does take a miracle. You can disagree with that if you like.


The actual claim of Christianity is that humans became bad when they were fooled by a talking snake. You're looking at this and saying "well some people are bad, so the story is basically true". I'm looking at this and saying "Why attribute the knowledge that people are bad to an untrue story? Why not just accept the knowledge from experience/observation?"

Again, I think you are making a very facile read of both the idea of original sin, and also of my position. I also disagree with your implicit characterization of there being knowledge that we "just accept from experience/observation." I also don't think there is such thing as a singe "actual" claim of Christianity.


A similar case would be if you told me that the Goldilocks and the 3 Bears story was true because most people seek things in moderation. You ignore the fact that none of the story actually happened and just take certain aspects of it that match reality and claim the whole thing as true. Now, I'm not saying that the Goldilocks story is useless, but at least admit that it's fictional.
I don't think I ever said "the whole thing is true." I also admit that Genesis is mythical.

[TheGillotine]

As I said before, I think this is a very facile reading. There is a long tradition of also reading the story in a way that is better characterized as metaphor.

The part I contend with is that people are inherently evil. The metaphor part actually doesn't bother me as much.


In the Jesus story, Jesus' death achieves both justice and mercy. It does take a miracle. You can disagree with that if you like.

No, actually, mercy is by definition the suspension of justice. A merciful judge will suspend the sentence of a criminal, but in doing so has suspended justice.


Again, I think you are making a very facile read of both the idea of original sin, and also of my position. I also disagree with your implicit characterization of there being knowledge that we "just accept from experience/observation." I also don't think there is such thing as a singe "actual" claim of Christianity.

I don't understand how you can disagree with the idea that we gain knowledge from experience or observation.

I don't think I ever said "the whole thing is true." I also admit that Genesis is mythical.
One book down :P
My beef is more with the people who say it's true. If you admit it's fictional then we can move on to debating the ethical merits.

[magillaG]

The part I contend with is that people are inherently evil. The metaphor part actually doesn't bother me as much.
I do think people have an inherent evil to them.


No, actually, mercy is by definition the suspension of justice. A merciful judge will suspend the sentence of a criminal, but in doing so has suspended justice.
God serves justice by taking the punishment of our sins, and in doing that gives us mercy and grace. (In a possible Christian interpretation of the story, at least.)


I don't understand how you can disagree with the idea that we gain knowledge from experience or observation.
I don't disagree that we gain knowledge from experience and observation- but it is a complicated thing that also involves reason and imagination. I think your characterization is too simplistic.


One book down :P
My beef is more with the people who say it's true. If you admit it's fictional then we can move on to debating the ethical merits.
Do you not think that there can be ethical statements that are true?

[Descalzo]

This is without a doubt *the* most detestable thing about Christianity. The idea that nobody can be good is absolutely disgusting. It's like going into a classroom full of children and telling them "There's no way you can ever succeed at getting your dream occupation. You'll never become a doctor, so you might as well prepare yourself to clean toilets every day." It's complete and utter bullshit. There are many good people in the world. If you can't see that, that's your problem, but I'd rather you didn't teach kids that they're inherently evil.

And yet here we are, in a world absolutely full of evidence that it is true.

[Roger Wilco]

God serves justice by taking the punishment of our sins, and in doing that gives us mercy and grace. (In a possible Christian interpretation of the story, at least.)

How is this just? That seems more like mercy. Justice would be to punish us for our own sins, no?

[Descalzo]

I asked if he saw any problem with this analogy:

I understand. You made it sound like you were disappointed that he had not. It made me wonder if perhaps you had laced it with specific problems.

[Descalzo]

How is this just? That seems more like mercy. Justice would be to punish us for our own sins, no?

I think maybe it's justice because the price is paid. I don't understand it fully. Obviously.

[Roger Wilco]

I think maybe it's justice because the price is paid. I don't understand it fully. Obviously.

To me it is just a game of symantics.

Christians call it justice because that is what they want it to be, not because that is what it actually is.

You can forgive someone, you can through an act of mercy and generosity "pay the price" for someone else. However this is in no way "Justice".

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

As a non-believer I used to think that God (if He existed) probably thought I was alright, since I'm generally a pretty good person. Now I thank Him for making me the way I am, and see how prideful it is to essentially bargain with Him using the gifts I've been given.

And yes I think people are inherently evil on some level, and for most of them it's really hard work suppressing it. I don't see it as a negative message.

[Roger Wilco]

As a non-believer I used to think that God (if He existed) probably thought I was alright, since I'm generally a pretty good person. Now I thank Him for making me the way I am, and see how prideful it is to essentially bargain with Him using the gifts I've been given.

And yes I think people are inherently evil on some level, and for most of them it's really hard work suppressing it. I don't see it as a negative message.

To me the whole "inherently evil" thing implies that infants, from the day they are born (or even earlier) are evil at their basic level and as such are deserving of punishment (even if you believe that this punishment wont be meeted out for whatever reason).

I personally have a big problem with this outlook. I think all children are basically innocent and as such are in no way evil. In which case I can not believe that "all people" are inherently evil. Maybe most adults are, but not all even.

Sure all people make mistakes, but I don't agree that that means they are evil either.

For myself, I will admit that I am not perfect. I do cruel things sometimes, things that I consider wrong. Does that make me evil, I don't know. But whether that is true for me or not is one thing, and whether it is true for others, including children and other people is a whole other story.

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

To me the whole "inherently evil" thing implies that infants, from the day they are born (or even earlier) are evil at their basic level and as such are deserving of punishment (even if you believe that this punishment wont be meeted out for whatever reason).

I personally have a big problem with this outlook. I think all children are basically innocent and as such are in no way evil. In which case I can not believe that "all people" are inherently evil. Maybe most adults are, but not all even.

Sure all people make mistakes, but I don't agree that that means they are evil either.

For myself, I will admit that I am not perfect. I do cruel things sometimes, things that I consider wrong. Does that make me evil, I don't know. But whether that is true for me or not is one thing, and whether it is true for others, including children and other people is a whole other story.

I agree with a lot of what you said. I consider myself a good person, but obviously I do bad things sometimes. Everyone does. I'm thinking "evil" in the way we're talking about should be something like "the capacity to do bad things." Infants may not be literally capable of doing, well anything, but I don't think that's relevant to the idea.

I see it as a positive message to recognize that we're all capable of doing bad things, and that through grace we can overcome it.

[Roger Wilco]

I agree with a lot of what you said. I consider myself a good person, but obviously I do bad things sometimes. Everyone does. I'm thinking "evil" in the way we're talking about should be something like "the capacity to do bad things." Infants may not be literally capable of doing, well anything, but I don't think that's relevant to the idea.

I see it as a positive message to recognize that we're all capable of doing bad things, and that through grace we can overcome it.

I agree with everything except the bolded. That may be because I really don't know what you mean by grace.

Personally I think that we can overcome our urges to do negative things through our own mental state. People can learn how to control themselves and not allow their actions to be motivated solely by their emotions at the spur of the moment. If people take the time to step back, think about how they are feeling in a certain situation and why and what actions will produce what results then they can make better decisions in life. I don't really know how grace plays into this, or if it even does at all.

ETA: As for the underlined, I don't agree but based on your description of "inherently evil" I would say that it is more or less a neutral message.

[Is This Wilt Chamberlain?]

I agree with everything except the bolded. That may be because I really don't know what you mean by grace.

Personally I think that we can overcome our urges to do negative things through our own mental state. People can learn how to control themselves and not allow their actions to be motivated solely by their emotions at the spur of the moment. If people take the time to step back, think about how they are feeling in a certain situation and why and what actions will produce what results then they can make better decisions in life. I don't really know how grace plays into this, or if it even does at all.

ETA: As for the underlined, I don't agree but based on your description of "inherently evil" I would say that it is more or less a neutral message.

Yeah sorry for using a word that can mean lots of different things, that doesn't help. I was thinking along the lines of salvation, but I'll come back to that.

I agree that all the things you describe can help you be a better person. But I think the point of it from the religious perspective is that your effort is asymptotic (AO is the only place I would use that word!)..you'll never be able to completely stop sinning/doing bad things. I think you know that to be true, completely unrelated to religion. So the message here, I guess a Christian message, is that in spite of this natural "evil", everyone can be saved and made perfectly good in the afterlife.

I don't mean to go all down a different track with this thread, but I wanted to explain why I think it's a positive message. Not everyone is all doom and gloom about it. But I think the definition of "evil" was a good thing to clear up. Don't want people thinking Christians go around picking on those evil babies.

[TheGillotine]

I do think people have an inherent evil to them.

Maybe you should associate with better people. I know plenty of people I wouldn't describe as inherently evil (including myself, by the way).

God serves justice by taking the punishment of our sins, and in doing that gives us mercy and grace. (In a possible Christian interpretation of the story, at least.)

If a mass murderer was tried and found guilty in court, and the judge granted him mercy and set him free, would you call that justice? If the judge took his place in prison, would you call that justice?

I don't disagree that we gain knowledge from experience and observation- but it is a complicated thing that also involves reason and imagination. I think your characterization is too simplistic.

I didn't say it is gained only from observation and experience, I simply said that those are potential ways of discovering things about the world.

Do you not think that there can be ethical statements that are true?
Absolutely, but they aren't as concrete, and I'm more focused on properly classifying the Bible at the moment. Once we've agreed that it's fictional, we can then objectively discuss whether the ethical recommendations of the Bible are good or bad.

[TheGillotine]

Yeah sorry for using a word that can mean lots of different things, that doesn't help. I was thinking along the lines of salvation, but I'll come back to that.

I agree that all the things you describe can help you be a better person. But I think the point of it from the religious perspective is that your effort is asymptotic (AO is the only place I would use that word!)..you'll never be able to completely stop sinning/doing bad things. I think you know that to be true, completely unrelated to religion. So the message here, I guess a Christian message, is that in spite of this natural "evil", everyone can be saved and made perfectly good in the afterlife.

I don't mean to go all down a different track with this thread, but I wanted to explain why I think it's a positive message. Not everyone is all doom and gloom about it. But I think the definition of "evil" was a good thing to clear up. Don't want people thinking Christians go around picking on those evil babies.

I think that people who have been taught from an early age that they are inherently evil are much more likely to do evil things, because they don't expect themselves to do any better. When I went through my deconversion, I decided to hold myself to my own standard and the standard of people I respect, and since I have very rarely done anything I regret.

[magillaG]

To me the whole "inherently evil" thing implies that infants, from the day they are born (or even earlier) are evil at their basic level and as such are deserving of punishment (even if you believe that this punishment wont be meeted out for whatever reason).

I personally have a big problem with this outlook. I think all children are basically innocent and as such are in no way evil. In which case I can not believe that "all people" are inherently evil. Maybe most adults are, but not all even.

Sure all people make mistakes, but I don't agree that that means they are evil either.

For myself, I will admit that I am not perfect. I do cruel things sometimes, things that I consider wrong. Does that make me evil, I don't know. But whether that is true for me or not is one thing, and whether it is true for others, including children and other people is a whole other story.

I am less concerned with whether newborns should be considered evil or not. I do think all of us, even infants, are born into, and partake in, a world that is inherently more unjust than it needs to be. For example, I wonder how many foreign factory workers must have endured terrible conditions for us to get our cheap products that make our lives possible. Etc.

That doesn't mean I think we should all sit around feeling guilty. (I was raised Protestant, not RC, after all.) But I think the emphasis should be that we are all called by God's grace to make the world a better place, despite its default state. The focus should not be on whether adults are or are not evil or not.

To make the world the place it ought to be, we must be as Godlike as we can. We must forgive and love each other, as we are also forgiven by God. That becomes justice, not the idea of human beings using punishment to make the world right.

Of course, a lot of this argument goes back at least to Pelagianism vs Augustinism. I think both sides have elements of truth. In its extreme form, my position can lead to perseverance of the saints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints) being used to all sorts of crazy things.

I see a lot of this tension as being reflected in our own criminal justice system: do we punish or rehabilitate. There must be a balance.

[magillaG]

Maybe you should associate with better people. I know plenty of people I wouldn't describe as inherently evil (including myself, by the way).
Please see my other post I just made on this.


If a mass murderer was tried and found guilty in court, and the judge granted him mercy and set him free, would you call that justice? If the judge took his place in prison, would you call that justice?

I would use a different characterization: if we could truly rehabilitate the prisoner, should we set him free? Or must he be executed anyway? I'm not sure. As a practical matter, we need to lock him up at least. We are not God. We are imperfect.


I didn't say it is gained only from observation and experience, I simply said that those are potential ways of discovering things about the world.
Perhaps I misunderstood.


Absolutely, but they aren't as concrete, and I'm more focused on properly classifying the Bible at the moment. Once we've agreed that it's fictional, we can then objectively discuss whether the ethical recommendations of the Bible are good or bad.
I am concerned with whether things are true or not. I am less sure of what you mean by "fictional"; I also don't think science is necessarily any more concrete. For example, are electromagnetic fields "fictional" or real? I'm not sure.

[ADoubleDot]

Amazing that such a shitty OP can spawn this enormous thread

[TheGillotine]

I am concerned with whether things are true or not. I am less sure of what you mean by "fictional"; I also don't think science is necessarily any more concrete. For example, are electromagnetic fields "fictional" or real? I'm not sure.

I think the bolded says it all.

[magillaG]

I think the bolded says it all.

I think the fact that you didn't get my analogy means you know little about physics.

I think your sarcastic comment means that you are too foolish to know that you know little.

On the off chance I am wrong: I simply mean that we can, obviously, in principle think about only moving charges as being real, and about electromagnetic field lines as being merely a mathematical construction that lets us understand experiments. Of course, Maxwell in particular found it very fruitful to treat field lines as if they were real, but that may be beside the point. It is similar to, but more accessible than, the question of scientific realism that, for example, quantum strangeness raises. I am not certain of scientific realism; so questions of religious realism maybe concern me less than they might other people.

[Klaymen]

This whole discussion of inherently evil is rather moot without some standard of good to which we must ascribe.

[TheGillotine]

This whole discussion of inherently evil is rather moot without some standard of good to which we must ascribe.

I don't even want to get into the sillyness that will ensue with a debate on ethics with a theist.

I think the fact that you didn't get my analogy means you know little about physics.

I think your sarcastic comment means that you are too foolish to know that you know little.

On the off chance I am wrong: I simply mean that we can, obviously, in principle think about only moving charges as being real, and about electromagnetic field lines as being merely a mathematical construction that lets us understand experiments. Of course, Maxwell in particular found it very fruitful to treat field lines as if they were real, but that may be beside the point. It is similar to, but more accessible than, the question of scientific realism that, for example, quantum strangeness raises. I am not certain of scientific realism; so questions of religious realism maybe concern me less than they might other people.

I may not be a physicist, but I think I understand the difference between a myth and a predictive model. That's what I'm referring to, and nothing more. The fact that you have consistently compared objectively false claims to unfalsifiable claims and now predictive models is concerning. It seems like you're making silly comparisons because you have an emotional need to believe things you know are false, but want to believe anyways. Or, more likely, you've become a victim of "political correctness" run so wild that anyone who says anything that conflicts with someone else's beliefs about reality is seen as being arrogant and insulting. In any case, these aren't comparisons that would come to someone who was looking at this objectively.

I mean seriously, let's back away from the details and see the big picture. What is it you're trying to say? That anyone who disproves someone else's beliefs is arrogant? That anyone who criticizes a liar is a hypocrite? Would you rather live in some sort of hippy dippy land where people believe what they want to believe and damn the truth? Help me out here, because I've had this conversation with people before and they never got to their main point.

[magillaG]

I may not be a physicist, but I think I understand the difference between a myth and a predictive model. That's what I'm referring to, and nothing more.

I know that's what you are referring to. You completely misunderstood my point. Instead of assuming I might mean something more complicated, you made a sarcastic comment that showed how ignorant you are, and also how unaware you are of your own ignorance, at least on these points.

The fact that you have consistently compared objectively false claims to unfalsifiable claims and now predictive models is concerning. It seems like you're making silly comparisons because you have an emotional need to believe things you know are false, but want to believe anyways.
I specifically said that religious claims are not falsifiable. After making a foolish sarcastic comment that is made largely out of ignorance, you now start psychoanalyzing me, based on a few actuarial outpost posts, and ignorance. I guess that's consistent. I also note that you don't seem to have a particularly good grasp on what is falsifiable- for example, the reality of electromagnetic field lines.


Or, more likely, you've become a victim of "political correctness" run so wild that anyone who says anything that conflicts with someone else's beliefs about reality is seen as being arrogant and insulting. In any case, these aren't comparisons that would come to someone who was looking at this objectively.

How do you know what comparisons would come to somebody who was looking at this "objectively"? Perhaps the same way you know what "insane" means, or what Christianity "actually" says.


I mean seriously, let's back away from the details and see the big picture. What is it you're trying to say? That anyone who disproves someone else's beliefs is arrogant? That anyone who criticizes a liar is a hypocrite? Would you rather live in some sort of hippy dippy land where people believe what they want to believe and damn the truth? Help me out here, because I've had this conversation with people before and they never got to their main point.
I think that my original point is that your analogy is silly. However, much like you have done with religion, you seem to enjoy manufacturing ridiculous arguments I am supposedly making.

[Noddy]

This whole discussion of inherently evil is rather moot without some standard of good to which we must ascribe.

And lemme guess - it's the bible of your mythical dog that is the source?

The standard is self evident and is oft referred to as the golden rule.

[Klaymen]

And lemme guess - it's the bible of your mythical dog that is the source?

The standard is self evident and is oft referred to as the golden rule.

While the concept of the golden rule is in the bible (though not referred to as such), again I think we shall always fall short of it.

[TheGillotine]

I specifically said that religious claims are not falsifiable. After making a foolish sarcastic comment that is made largely out of ignorance, you now start psychoanalyzing me, based on a few actuarial outpost posts, and ignorance. I guess that's consistent. I also note that you don't seem to have a particularly good grasp on what is falsifiable- for example, the reality of electromagnetic field lines.


But many religious claims *are* falsifiable, and those are the ones I'm arguing against! And maybe I'm questioning your objectivity because I don't understand why anyone would defend falsified claims that are proposed to be absolute truth against known evidence (ie. LIES).

Tell you what, watch a Kent Hovind video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY), then tell me his "theories" should be classified the same as electromagnetism.

[gosuruss]

magilla is victim to being such a knowledge skeptic that the word knowledge almost loses its meaning. he is so skeptical as to whether we actually know anything that it seems strange that he would adopt such strange incoherent christian beliefs -- until you realize of course he was raised a christian and his knowledge skepticism works both ways -- you can't really prove anything, and you can't disprove anything. so he keeps the default, despite the massively obvious suggestion that jesus was not the son of god. of course, he would disagree with the very construction of that sentence -- he does not believe jesus to be the son of god is a true/false statement.

[magillaG]

But many religious claims *are* falsifiable, and those are the ones I'm arguing against! And maybe I'm questioning your objectivity because I don't understand why anyone would defend falsified claims that are proposed to be absolute truth against known evidence (ie. LIES).

Tell you what, watch a Kent Hovind video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY), then tell me his "theories" should be classified the same as electromagnetism.

Religion is not a scientific theory. And I'm not defending falsified theories. I am defending reinterpreting religion as a modern scientific theory. The answer to such pseudoscientific ideas as creationism and intelligent design is not atheism laced with more pseudoscience. It's actual science, which must be agnostic to metaphysics and ethics.

[magillaG]

magilla is victim to being such a knowledge skeptic that the word knowledge almost loses its meaning. he is so skeptical as to whether we actually know anything that it seems strange that he would adopt such strange incoherent christian beliefs -- until you realize of course he was raised a christian and his knowledge skepticism works both ways -- you can't really prove anything, and you can't disprove anything. so he keeps the default, despite the massively obvious suggestion that jesus was not the son of god. of course, he would disagree with the very construction of that sentence -- he does not believe jesus to be the son of god is a true/false statement.

I wouldn't characterize my positions that way. I do think we can arrive at knowledge, which progresses. I probably don't believe anymore in what might be called "diamonds of truth"- bits of knowledge that we know are absolutely true, for example in the way the West thought geometry was true for millenia.

[TheGillotine]

Religion is not a scientific theory. And I'm not defending falsified theories. I am defending reinterpreting religion as a modern scientific theory. The answer to such pseudoscientific ideas as creationism and intelligent design is not atheism laced with more pseudoscience. It's actual science, which must be agnostic to metaphysics and ethics.

To me, the big jump from agnosticism (actually it was deism for me) to atheism is about being honest with what you actually believe. Not much more than a year ago, I was saying stuff like this:
A: From the CTMU, there emerge multiple levels of consciousness. Human temporal consciousness is the level with which we're familiar; global (parallel) consciousness is that of the universe as a whole. The soul is the connection between the two...the embedment of the former in the latter.

In the CTMU, reality is viewed as a profoundly self-contained, self-referential kind of "language", and languages have syntaxes. Because self-reference is an abstract generalization of consciousness - consciousness is the attribute by virtue of which we possess self-awareness - conscious agents are "sublanguages" possessing their own cognitive syntaxes. Now, global consciousness is based on a complete cognitive syntax in which our own incomplete syntax can be embedded, and this makes human consciousness transparent to it; in contrast, our ability to access the global level is restricted due to our syntactic limitations.

Thus, while we are transparent to the global syntax of the global conscious agency "God", we cannot see everything that God can see. Whereas God perceives one total act of creation in a parallel distributed fashion, with everything in perfect superposition, we are localized in spacetime and perceive reality only in a succession of locally creative moments. This parallelism has powerful implications. When a human being dies, his entire history remains embedded in the timeless level of consciousness...the Deic level. In that sense, he or she is preserved by virtue of his or her "soul". And since the universe is a self-refining entity, that which is teleologically valid in the informational construct called "you" may be locally re-injected or redistributed in spacetime. In principle, this could be a recombinative process, with the essences of many people combining in a set of local injections or "reincarnations" (this could lead to strange effects...e.g., a single person remembering simultaneous "past lifetimes").

In addition, an individual human sublanguage might be vectored into an alternate domain dynamically connected to its existence in spacetime. In this scenario, the entity would emerge into an alternate reality based on the interaction between her local level of consciousness and the global level embedding it...i.e., based on the state of her "soul" as just defined. This may be the origin of beliefs regarding heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo and other spiritual realms.

Eventually I realized that such theories were simply rationalizations for an unsupported idea I was raised with. The final sentence is key. "This may be the origin of beliefs regarding heaven, hell, etc." The truth is that preconceptions cause us to attribute these things to existing mythology. People will call a global conscious agency "God" but that is *not* what God is, at least in the traditional sense of the word. We can trace the towards the origins of God belief through history and psychology. History, of course, is the more damning. Because when you trace the evolution of Yahweh from earlier mythologies it really becomes hard to differentiate between modern Christians and ancient Bhaal worshipers.

[magillaG]

To me, the big jump from agnosticism (actually it was deism for me) to atheism is about being honest with what you actually believe. Not much more than a year ago, I was saying stuff like this:


Eventually I realized that such theories were simply rationalizations for an unsupported idea I was raised with. The final sentence is key. "This may be the origin of beliefs regarding heaven, hell, etc." The truth is that preconceptions cause us to attribute these things to existing mythology. People will call a global conscious agency "God" but that is *not* what God is, at least in the traditional sense of the word. We can trace the towards the origins of God belief through history and psychology. History, of course, is the more damning. Because when you trace the evolution of Yahweh from earlier mythologies it really becomes hard to differentiate between modern Christians and ancient Bhaal worshipers.


I know some people like that CTMU guy, but frankly if you were unlucky enough that he was the best person you found to wrestle with this stuff, them I am not surprised you became an atheist.

Rather than focusing on how creationism isn't compatible with modern science- of course, it is not- I think you would be better served finding what, exactly, the traditional meaning of the word "God" has been. I agree that it is partially myth. Even if you still don't believe that God doesn't exist, I think it would still involve growth. Simply reinterpreting religion as a scientific theory won't do that, in my opinion.

[magillaG]

To me, the big jump from agnosticism (actually it was deism for me) to atheism is about being honest with what you actually believe. Not much more than a year ago, I was saying stuff like this:


Eventually I realized that such theories were simply rationalizations for an unsupported idea I was raised with. The final sentence is key. "This may be the origin of beliefs regarding heaven, hell, etc." The truth is that preconceptions cause us to attribute these things to existing mythology. People will call a global conscious agency "God" but that is *not* what God is, at least in the traditional sense of the word. We can trace the towards the origins of God belief through history and psychology. History, of course, is the more damning. Because when you trace the evolution of Yahweh from earlier mythologies it really becomes hard to differentiate between modern Christians and ancient Bhaal worshipers.

I would also recommend "When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?" by Ian Barbour. He is a physicist and theologian. (I think he would be classified as a process theologian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology)) The book tries very hard to represent all views of science and religion.

[QMO]

I'd be curious to find out where the basis for this comes from. In the NIV I searched Child + God and here are the most relevant verses (but not all instances):

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Luke 20:35-36
But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

John 1:12-13
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

John 11:51-52
He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

Romans 8:14
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

Galatians 3:26
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

I John 3:1
See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

I John 3:10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

Revelation 21:7-8
Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

No, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that all people are children of God. Created by God? Yes.

I see that you are one that only sees it one way.

For just one example of the other way, try Acts 17:29.

[cohomology]

Eventually I realized that such theories were simply rationalizations for an unsupported idea I was raised with. The final sentence is key. "This may be the origin of beliefs regarding heaven, hell, etc." The truth is that preconceptions cause us to attribute these things to existing mythology. People will call a global conscious agency "God" but that is *not* what God is, at least in the traditional sense of the word. We can trace the towards the origins of God belief through history and psychology. History, of course, is the more damning. Because when you trace the evolution of Yahweh from earlier mythologies it really becomes hard to differentiate between modern Christians and ancient Bhaal worshipers.

i am not sure what you are trying to say here? The cTMU follows from the logic of a self contained universe. it doesnt start with a conclusion and work backwards, actuarlly read a paper on it, or, are you using preconceived notions?